Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 226 (RAJ)

Sultan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-01-17

SABINA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Petitioner had faced trial on a complaint filed by respondent no. 2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with regard to dishonour of cheque-in-question. 2. Trial court vide judgment/order dated 12.04.2012, ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 7.2.2017. Hence, the present petitioner by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cheque amount had been filled as Rupees seven lacs and seventy thousand whereas, only Rupees six lacs and ten thousand remained to be paid to the respondent on account of balance loan amount after auction of the vehicle-in-question. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has opposed the petition. 5. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the petitioner had issued cheque in the sum of Rupees seven lacs and thirty thousand in favour of the complainant towards repayment of loan. However, when the said cheque was presented for encashment with the bank, it was dishonoured by the bank with remarks 'insufficient funds'. Despite issuance of notice, petitioner had failed to pay the cheque amount-in-question to the complainant. Hence, the complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed against the petitioner. 6. Complainant led its evidence in support of its case during trial. Admittedly, petitioner had purchased a vehicle after obtaining loan to the tune of Rupees fourteen lacs and thirty five thousand from the complainant company. Since, the petitioner had failed to repay the loan, the vehicle was auctioned for Rupees eight lacs and twenty five thousand. It is the case of the complainant that with regard to the remaining amount, petitioner had issued cheque in the sum of Rupees seven lacs and thirty thousand. Admittedly, the cheque-in-question bears the signatures of the petitioner. Petitioner had failed to repay the loan installments to the complainant company. It was the case of the complainant that the amount of Rupees six lacs and ten thousand would have been liable to be paid by the petitioner if he had regularly paid the installments. Since, the petitioner had failed to repay the installments, he had issued the cheque-in-question with regard to the outstanding amount along with interest to the tune of Rupees seven lacs and thirty thousand. 7. Since, the petitioner had failed to repay the installments, he had issued the cheque-in-question with regard to the outstanding amount along with interest to the tune of Rupees seven lacs and thirty thousand. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the courts below. 8. Since, the cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant company has been dishonoured by the bank, the courts below had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. 9. No ground for interference by this court is made out. 10. Dismissed.